User login
Aggression toward health care providers common during pandemic
After an aggressive event or abuse occurred, 56% of providers considered changing their care tasks, and more than a third considered quitting their profession.
“Aggression of any sort against health care providers is not a new social phenomenon, and it has existed as far as medicine and health care is reported in literature. However, the phenomenon of aggression against health care providers during the pandemic grew worse,” senior study author Adrian Baranchuk, MD, a professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., told this news organization.
The study was published online in Current Problems in Cardiology
Survey snapshot
Dr. Baranchuk and colleagues, with the support of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, developed a survey to characterize the frequency and types of abuse that frontline health professionals faced. They invited health care professionals from Latin America who had provided care since March 2020 to participate.
Between January and February 2022, 3,544 participants from 19 countries took the survey. Among them, 70.8% were physicians, 16% were nurses, and 13.2% were other health team members, such as administrative staff and technicians. About 58.5% were women, and 74.7% provided direct care to patients with COVID-19.
Overall, 54.8% of respondents reported acts of aggression. Of this group, 95.6% reported verbal abuse, 11.1% reported physical abuse, and 19.9% reported other types of abuse, including microaggressions.
About 13% of respondents reported experiencing some form of aggression daily, 26.4% experienced abuse weekly, and 38.8% reported violence a few times per month. Typically, the incidents involved patients’ relatives or both the patients and their relatives.
Nearly half of those who reported abuse experienced psychosomatic symptoms after the event, and 12% sought psychological care.
Administrative staff were 3.5 times more likely to experience abuse than other health care workers. Doctors and nurses were about twice as likely to experience abuse.
In addition, women, younger staff, and those who worked directly with COVID-19 patients were more likely to report abuse.
‘Shocking results’
Dr. Baranchuk, a native of Argentina, said people initially celebrated doctors and nurses for keeping communities safe. In several countries across Latin America, for instance, people lit candles, applauded at certain hours, and posted support on social media. As pandemic-related policies changed, however, health care providers faced unrest as people grew tired of wearing masks, maintaining social distance, and obeying restrictions at public spaces such as clubs and restaurants.
“This fatigue toward the social changes grew, but people didn’t have a specific target, and slowly and gradually, health care providers became the target of frustration and hate,” said Dr. Baranchuk. “In areas of the world where legislation is more flexible and less strict in charging individuals with poor or unacceptable behavior toward members of the health care team, aggression and microaggression became more frequent.”
“The results we obtained were more shocking than we expected,” Sebastián García-Zamora, MD, the lead study author and head of the coronary care unit at the Delta Clinic, Buenos Aires, said in an interview.
Dr. García-Zamora, also the coordinator of the International Society of Electrocardiology Young Community, noted the particularly high numbers of reports among young health care workers and women.
“Unfortunately, young women seem to be the most vulnerable staff to suffering violence, regardless of the work they perform in the health system,” he said. “Notably, less than one in four health team members that suffered workplace violence pursued legal action based on the events.”
The research team is now conducting additional analyses on the different types of aggression based on gender, region, and task performed by the health care team. They’re trying to understand who is most vulnerable to physical attacks, as well as the consequences.
“The most important thing to highlight is that this problem exists, it is more frequent than we think, and we can only solve it if we all get involved in it,” Dr. García-Zamora said.
‘Complete systematic failure’
Health care workers in certain communities faced more aggression as well. In a CMAJ Open study published in November 2021, Asian Canadian and Asian American health care workers experienced discrimination, racial microaggressions, threats of violence, and violent acts during the pandemic. Women and frontline workers with direct patient contact were more likely to face verbal and physical abuse.
“This highlights that we need to continue the fight against misogyny, racism, and health care worker discrimination,” lead study author Zhida Shang, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, told this news organization.
“As we are managing to live with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study our successes and shortcomings. I sincerely believe that during the pandemic, the treatment of various racialized communities, including Asian Americans and Asian Canadians, was a complete systematic failure,” he said. “It is crucial to continue to examine, reflect, and learn from these lessons so that there will be equitable outcomes during the next public health emergency.”
The study was conducted without funding support. Dr. Baranchuk, Dr. García-Zamora, and Ms. Shang report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After an aggressive event or abuse occurred, 56% of providers considered changing their care tasks, and more than a third considered quitting their profession.
“Aggression of any sort against health care providers is not a new social phenomenon, and it has existed as far as medicine and health care is reported in literature. However, the phenomenon of aggression against health care providers during the pandemic grew worse,” senior study author Adrian Baranchuk, MD, a professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., told this news organization.
The study was published online in Current Problems in Cardiology
Survey snapshot
Dr. Baranchuk and colleagues, with the support of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, developed a survey to characterize the frequency and types of abuse that frontline health professionals faced. They invited health care professionals from Latin America who had provided care since March 2020 to participate.
Between January and February 2022, 3,544 participants from 19 countries took the survey. Among them, 70.8% were physicians, 16% were nurses, and 13.2% were other health team members, such as administrative staff and technicians. About 58.5% were women, and 74.7% provided direct care to patients with COVID-19.
Overall, 54.8% of respondents reported acts of aggression. Of this group, 95.6% reported verbal abuse, 11.1% reported physical abuse, and 19.9% reported other types of abuse, including microaggressions.
About 13% of respondents reported experiencing some form of aggression daily, 26.4% experienced abuse weekly, and 38.8% reported violence a few times per month. Typically, the incidents involved patients’ relatives or both the patients and their relatives.
Nearly half of those who reported abuse experienced psychosomatic symptoms after the event, and 12% sought psychological care.
Administrative staff were 3.5 times more likely to experience abuse than other health care workers. Doctors and nurses were about twice as likely to experience abuse.
In addition, women, younger staff, and those who worked directly with COVID-19 patients were more likely to report abuse.
‘Shocking results’
Dr. Baranchuk, a native of Argentina, said people initially celebrated doctors and nurses for keeping communities safe. In several countries across Latin America, for instance, people lit candles, applauded at certain hours, and posted support on social media. As pandemic-related policies changed, however, health care providers faced unrest as people grew tired of wearing masks, maintaining social distance, and obeying restrictions at public spaces such as clubs and restaurants.
“This fatigue toward the social changes grew, but people didn’t have a specific target, and slowly and gradually, health care providers became the target of frustration and hate,” said Dr. Baranchuk. “In areas of the world where legislation is more flexible and less strict in charging individuals with poor or unacceptable behavior toward members of the health care team, aggression and microaggression became more frequent.”
“The results we obtained were more shocking than we expected,” Sebastián García-Zamora, MD, the lead study author and head of the coronary care unit at the Delta Clinic, Buenos Aires, said in an interview.
Dr. García-Zamora, also the coordinator of the International Society of Electrocardiology Young Community, noted the particularly high numbers of reports among young health care workers and women.
“Unfortunately, young women seem to be the most vulnerable staff to suffering violence, regardless of the work they perform in the health system,” he said. “Notably, less than one in four health team members that suffered workplace violence pursued legal action based on the events.”
The research team is now conducting additional analyses on the different types of aggression based on gender, region, and task performed by the health care team. They’re trying to understand who is most vulnerable to physical attacks, as well as the consequences.
“The most important thing to highlight is that this problem exists, it is more frequent than we think, and we can only solve it if we all get involved in it,” Dr. García-Zamora said.
‘Complete systematic failure’
Health care workers in certain communities faced more aggression as well. In a CMAJ Open study published in November 2021, Asian Canadian and Asian American health care workers experienced discrimination, racial microaggressions, threats of violence, and violent acts during the pandemic. Women and frontline workers with direct patient contact were more likely to face verbal and physical abuse.
“This highlights that we need to continue the fight against misogyny, racism, and health care worker discrimination,” lead study author Zhida Shang, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, told this news organization.
“As we are managing to live with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study our successes and shortcomings. I sincerely believe that during the pandemic, the treatment of various racialized communities, including Asian Americans and Asian Canadians, was a complete systematic failure,” he said. “It is crucial to continue to examine, reflect, and learn from these lessons so that there will be equitable outcomes during the next public health emergency.”
The study was conducted without funding support. Dr. Baranchuk, Dr. García-Zamora, and Ms. Shang report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After an aggressive event or abuse occurred, 56% of providers considered changing their care tasks, and more than a third considered quitting their profession.
“Aggression of any sort against health care providers is not a new social phenomenon, and it has existed as far as medicine and health care is reported in literature. However, the phenomenon of aggression against health care providers during the pandemic grew worse,” senior study author Adrian Baranchuk, MD, a professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., told this news organization.
The study was published online in Current Problems in Cardiology
Survey snapshot
Dr. Baranchuk and colleagues, with the support of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, developed a survey to characterize the frequency and types of abuse that frontline health professionals faced. They invited health care professionals from Latin America who had provided care since March 2020 to participate.
Between January and February 2022, 3,544 participants from 19 countries took the survey. Among them, 70.8% were physicians, 16% were nurses, and 13.2% were other health team members, such as administrative staff and technicians. About 58.5% were women, and 74.7% provided direct care to patients with COVID-19.
Overall, 54.8% of respondents reported acts of aggression. Of this group, 95.6% reported verbal abuse, 11.1% reported physical abuse, and 19.9% reported other types of abuse, including microaggressions.
About 13% of respondents reported experiencing some form of aggression daily, 26.4% experienced abuse weekly, and 38.8% reported violence a few times per month. Typically, the incidents involved patients’ relatives or both the patients and their relatives.
Nearly half of those who reported abuse experienced psychosomatic symptoms after the event, and 12% sought psychological care.
Administrative staff were 3.5 times more likely to experience abuse than other health care workers. Doctors and nurses were about twice as likely to experience abuse.
In addition, women, younger staff, and those who worked directly with COVID-19 patients were more likely to report abuse.
‘Shocking results’
Dr. Baranchuk, a native of Argentina, said people initially celebrated doctors and nurses for keeping communities safe. In several countries across Latin America, for instance, people lit candles, applauded at certain hours, and posted support on social media. As pandemic-related policies changed, however, health care providers faced unrest as people grew tired of wearing masks, maintaining social distance, and obeying restrictions at public spaces such as clubs and restaurants.
“This fatigue toward the social changes grew, but people didn’t have a specific target, and slowly and gradually, health care providers became the target of frustration and hate,” said Dr. Baranchuk. “In areas of the world where legislation is more flexible and less strict in charging individuals with poor or unacceptable behavior toward members of the health care team, aggression and microaggression became more frequent.”
“The results we obtained were more shocking than we expected,” Sebastián García-Zamora, MD, the lead study author and head of the coronary care unit at the Delta Clinic, Buenos Aires, said in an interview.
Dr. García-Zamora, also the coordinator of the International Society of Electrocardiology Young Community, noted the particularly high numbers of reports among young health care workers and women.
“Unfortunately, young women seem to be the most vulnerable staff to suffering violence, regardless of the work they perform in the health system,” he said. “Notably, less than one in four health team members that suffered workplace violence pursued legal action based on the events.”
The research team is now conducting additional analyses on the different types of aggression based on gender, region, and task performed by the health care team. They’re trying to understand who is most vulnerable to physical attacks, as well as the consequences.
“The most important thing to highlight is that this problem exists, it is more frequent than we think, and we can only solve it if we all get involved in it,” Dr. García-Zamora said.
‘Complete systematic failure’
Health care workers in certain communities faced more aggression as well. In a CMAJ Open study published in November 2021, Asian Canadian and Asian American health care workers experienced discrimination, racial microaggressions, threats of violence, and violent acts during the pandemic. Women and frontline workers with direct patient contact were more likely to face verbal and physical abuse.
“This highlights that we need to continue the fight against misogyny, racism, and health care worker discrimination,” lead study author Zhida Shang, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, told this news organization.
“As we are managing to live with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study our successes and shortcomings. I sincerely believe that during the pandemic, the treatment of various racialized communities, including Asian Americans and Asian Canadians, was a complete systematic failure,” he said. “It is crucial to continue to examine, reflect, and learn from these lessons so that there will be equitable outcomes during the next public health emergency.”
The study was conducted without funding support. Dr. Baranchuk, Dr. García-Zamora, and Ms. Shang report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Inflation and health care: The prognosis for doctors
Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.
How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage?
Step 1: Maintain operational standards
“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.
Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges
Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”
“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization
These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.
Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships
Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.
Step 5: Don’t waste your assets
Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.
Step 6: Be poised to pivot
Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”
Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
Step 7: Maintain transparency
Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.
How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage?
Step 1: Maintain operational standards
“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.
Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges
Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”
“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization
These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.
Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships
Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.
Step 5: Don’t waste your assets
Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.
Step 6: Be poised to pivot
Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”
Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
Step 7: Maintain transparency
Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rampant inflation doesn’t just mean a spike in everyday expenses like gas and groceries. It’s also bound to have a significant impact on the cost of health care – and on your practice. A recent report from McKinsey & Company predicts that the current inflationary spiral will force health care providers to charge higher reimbursement rates, and those costs inevitably will be passed along to both employers and consumers. Bottom line: Your patients will likely have to pay more out of pocket.
How, precisely, will inflation affect your practice, and what’s the best way to minimize the damage?
Step 1: Maintain operational standards
“Based on the conversations we’ve had with our physician clients that own practices, we see the potential for cost inflation to outrun revenue inflation over the next year,” said Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital, El Segundo, Calif. “Staff wages, as well as office equipment and medical supply costs, are increasing faster than insurance and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement amounts.” Even so, topflight employees are essential to keep your practice running smoothly. Prioritize excellent nursing. Instead of adding a new hire, compensate your best nurse as well as possible. The same goes for an efficient office manager: On that front, too, you should go the extra mile, even if it means trimming expenses elsewhere.
Step 2: Plan ahead for insurance challenges
Many insurers, including Medicare, set health care costs a year in advance, based on projected growth. This means insurance payouts will stay largely the same for the time being. “Almost all physicians employed by large groups won’t see costs due to inflation rise until next year,” said Mark V. Pauly, PhD, Bendheim Professor in the department of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “For self-employed physicians, there will also be a cushion.”
“The big issue with inflation is that more patients will likely be underinsured,” said Tiffany Johnson, MBA, CFP, co-CEO and financial advisor at Piece of Wealth Planning in Atlanta. “With more out-of-pocket costs ... these patients may not seek out medical treatment or go to see a specialist if they do not believe it is necessary.” A new study from Johns Hopkins found that patients under financial pressure often delay or forgo medical treatment because of food insecurity. Compassionate care is the solution: Direct these patients to financial aid and other resources they may qualify for. That way, they can continue to receive the care they need from you, and your need to pass on costs may be lower.
Step 3: Rely on your affiliated health care organization
These are tough times when it comes to expansion. “Since we are in an environment where inflation and interest rates are both high, it will be much harder for physicians to have the capital to invest in new technology to grow or advance their practice,” Ms. Johnson said. With that in mind, keep the lines of communication between you and your affiliated hospital/health care organization more open than ever. Combining practices with another doctor is one way to increase revenue; you might ask if any affiliated doctors are seeking to team up. It’s also vital to attend meetings and pay close attention to budget cuts your organization may be making. And don’t be shy about asking your administrator for profit-boosting recommendations.
Step 4: Revisit vendor relationships
Find out if your vendors will continue to supply you with the goods you need at reasonable rates, and switch now if they won’t. Be proactive. “Test new medical suppliers,” Mr. Schulman advised. “Reread equipment leasing contracts to check if the interest rates have increased. See if buyout, prepay, or refinancing options are more economical. Also, investigate [bringing down] your rental expense by reducing square footage or moving to a lower-cost location.” In light of ongoing supply chain issues, it’s wise to consider alternative products. But stay focused on quality – you don’t want to be stuck with cheap, possibly defective equipment. Spend where it’s essential and cut the fat somewhere else.
Step 5: Don’t waste your assets
Analyze your budget in minute detail. “Now is the time to review your current inventory and overhead costs,” Ms. Johnson said. “Many physicians let their office staff handle the restocking of inventory and office supplies. While this can be efficient for their practice, it also leaves room for unnecessary business expenses.” Take a cold, hard look at your supply closet – what’s in there that you can live without? Don’t reorder it. Then seek out any revenue stream you may be overlooking. “It’s important to review billing to make sure all the services are reimbursable,” Ms. Johnson added. Small mistakes can yield dividends if you find them.
Step 6: Be poised to pivot
Get creative. “To minimize a profit decline, use video consulting – it’s more efficient and less equipment intensive,” Mr. Schulman said. “Look at how remote work and flexible hours can maximize the work your practice accomplishes while cutting office costs.”
Ms. Johnson suggests adding concierge services, noting that “concierge doctors offer personalized care and direct access for an up-front fee.” With this approach, you may see fewer patients, but your payout paperwork will decrease, and that up-front fee can be profitable. Another outside-the-box idea: Start making house calls. A Scripps study found that home health visits requested via app can result in patient care delivered by a doctor and medical assistant in less than 2 hours. House calls can be an effective and profitable solution when it comes to providing nonemergency care and preventive treatment to patients who aren’t mobile, not to mention patients who just appreciate the convenience.
Step 7: Maintain transparency
Any economic changes your practice will implement must be communicated to your staff and patients clearly and directly. Keep everyone in the loop and be ready to answer questions immediately. Show those you work with and care for that, regardless of the economy, it’s they who matter to you most. That simple reassurance will prove invaluable.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roe v. Wade overturned: A family medicine resident reacts
I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.
Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.
The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.
Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.
When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.
Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.
These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”
My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion
The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.1 Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.
The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.
Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.2 They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.
In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.
Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.
In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.3 Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
Patient-physicians interactions are changed
As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.
With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.
Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.
The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.
Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states
2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf
3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8
I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.
Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.
The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.
Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.
When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.
Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.
These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”
My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion
The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.1 Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.
The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.
Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.2 They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.
In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.
Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.
In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.3 Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
Patient-physicians interactions are changed
As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.
With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.
Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.
The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.
Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states
2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf
3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8
I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.
Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.
The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.
Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.
When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.
Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.
These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”
My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion
The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.1 Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.
The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.
Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.2 They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.
In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.
Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.
In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.3 Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
Patient-physicians interactions are changed
As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.
With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.
Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.
The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.
Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states
2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf
3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8
Algorithm method versus spidey sense
One to two times a week I go through my junk mail folder. Usually it’s a collection of, well, junk: ads for CME, office software, car warranties, gift cards, dating sites, eyeglass or razor sellers, etc.
But there are usually a few items I’m glad I found, ones that I’m not sure how they ended up there. Bank notifications, package-tracking updates, a few other things. By the same token, every day a few pieces of junk land in my inbox.
This is, however, what we do for a living in this job.
Some patients are straightforward. The story is clear, the plan obvious.
Some require a bit more thinking.
And some are all over the place. Histories that wander everywhere, a million symptoms and clues. Most are likely red herrings, but which ones isn’t immediately obvious. And it’s up to the doctor to work this out.
With my junk folder, though, it’s usually immediately obvious what the useless things are compared with those of value. In medicine it’s often not so simple. You have to be careful what you discard, and you always need to be ready to change your mind and backtrack.
Artificial intelligence gets better every year but still makes plenty of mistakes. In sorting email my computer has to work out the signal-to-noise ratio of incoming items and decide which ones mean something. If my junk folder is any indication, it still has a ways to go.
This isn’t to say I’m infallible. I’m not. Unlike the algorithms my email program uses, there are no definite rules in medical cases. Picking through the clues is something that comes with training, experience, and a bit of luck. When I realize I’m going in the wrong direction I have to step back and rethink it all.
A lot of chart systems try to incorporate algorithms into medical decision-making. Sometimes they’re helpful, such as pointing out a drug interaction I wasn’t aware of. At other times they’re not, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering a test because such-and-such criteria haven’t been met. The trouble is these algorithms are written to apply to all cases, even though every patient is different. Sometimes the best we can go on is what I call “spidey sense” – realizing that there’s more than meets the eye here. In 24 years it’s served me well, far better than any computer algorithm has.
People talk about a natural fear of being replaced by computers. I agree that there are some things they’re very good at, and they keep getting better. But medicine isn’t a one-size-fits-all field. And the consequences are a lot higher than those from my bank statement being overlooked for a few days.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
One to two times a week I go through my junk mail folder. Usually it’s a collection of, well, junk: ads for CME, office software, car warranties, gift cards, dating sites, eyeglass or razor sellers, etc.
But there are usually a few items I’m glad I found, ones that I’m not sure how they ended up there. Bank notifications, package-tracking updates, a few other things. By the same token, every day a few pieces of junk land in my inbox.
This is, however, what we do for a living in this job.
Some patients are straightforward. The story is clear, the plan obvious.
Some require a bit more thinking.
And some are all over the place. Histories that wander everywhere, a million symptoms and clues. Most are likely red herrings, but which ones isn’t immediately obvious. And it’s up to the doctor to work this out.
With my junk folder, though, it’s usually immediately obvious what the useless things are compared with those of value. In medicine it’s often not so simple. You have to be careful what you discard, and you always need to be ready to change your mind and backtrack.
Artificial intelligence gets better every year but still makes plenty of mistakes. In sorting email my computer has to work out the signal-to-noise ratio of incoming items and decide which ones mean something. If my junk folder is any indication, it still has a ways to go.
This isn’t to say I’m infallible. I’m not. Unlike the algorithms my email program uses, there are no definite rules in medical cases. Picking through the clues is something that comes with training, experience, and a bit of luck. When I realize I’m going in the wrong direction I have to step back and rethink it all.
A lot of chart systems try to incorporate algorithms into medical decision-making. Sometimes they’re helpful, such as pointing out a drug interaction I wasn’t aware of. At other times they’re not, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering a test because such-and-such criteria haven’t been met. The trouble is these algorithms are written to apply to all cases, even though every patient is different. Sometimes the best we can go on is what I call “spidey sense” – realizing that there’s more than meets the eye here. In 24 years it’s served me well, far better than any computer algorithm has.
People talk about a natural fear of being replaced by computers. I agree that there are some things they’re very good at, and they keep getting better. But medicine isn’t a one-size-fits-all field. And the consequences are a lot higher than those from my bank statement being overlooked for a few days.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
One to two times a week I go through my junk mail folder. Usually it’s a collection of, well, junk: ads for CME, office software, car warranties, gift cards, dating sites, eyeglass or razor sellers, etc.
But there are usually a few items I’m glad I found, ones that I’m not sure how they ended up there. Bank notifications, package-tracking updates, a few other things. By the same token, every day a few pieces of junk land in my inbox.
This is, however, what we do for a living in this job.
Some patients are straightforward. The story is clear, the plan obvious.
Some require a bit more thinking.
And some are all over the place. Histories that wander everywhere, a million symptoms and clues. Most are likely red herrings, but which ones isn’t immediately obvious. And it’s up to the doctor to work this out.
With my junk folder, though, it’s usually immediately obvious what the useless things are compared with those of value. In medicine it’s often not so simple. You have to be careful what you discard, and you always need to be ready to change your mind and backtrack.
Artificial intelligence gets better every year but still makes plenty of mistakes. In sorting email my computer has to work out the signal-to-noise ratio of incoming items and decide which ones mean something. If my junk folder is any indication, it still has a ways to go.
This isn’t to say I’m infallible. I’m not. Unlike the algorithms my email program uses, there are no definite rules in medical cases. Picking through the clues is something that comes with training, experience, and a bit of luck. When I realize I’m going in the wrong direction I have to step back and rethink it all.
A lot of chart systems try to incorporate algorithms into medical decision-making. Sometimes they’re helpful, such as pointing out a drug interaction I wasn’t aware of. At other times they’re not, telling me I shouldn’t be ordering a test because such-and-such criteria haven’t been met. The trouble is these algorithms are written to apply to all cases, even though every patient is different. Sometimes the best we can go on is what I call “spidey sense” – realizing that there’s more than meets the eye here. In 24 years it’s served me well, far better than any computer algorithm has.
People talk about a natural fear of being replaced by computers. I agree that there are some things they’re very good at, and they keep getting better. But medicine isn’t a one-size-fits-all field. And the consequences are a lot higher than those from my bank statement being overlooked for a few days.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Docs reveal perils of giving medical advice to friends and family
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.
Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.
Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.
But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.
“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.
When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.
Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”
“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”
Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”
Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.
“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”
This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.
When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.
Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.
How to stay safe when asked for advice
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”
What about friends or acquaintances, however?
Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”
The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”
Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?
In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.
The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”
Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.
This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.
“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”
Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”
The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:
- Politely decline.
- Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
- Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.
Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”
Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemental health linked with improvements in key outcomes
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctor who lied about his age sentenced to 3 years for killing woman with botched marrow procedure
A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.
Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.
The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”
‘Highly dangerous’ procedure
Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.
A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.
Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.
Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.
Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.
Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”
A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
Controversy over his ‘true age’
Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.
During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.
But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.
However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.
In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.
The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.
Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.
The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.
However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.
Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.
He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.
“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”
This article contains information from PA Media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.
Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.
The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”
‘Highly dangerous’ procedure
Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.
A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.
Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.
Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.
Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.
Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”
A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
Controversy over his ‘true age’
Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.
During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.
But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.
However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.
In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.
The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.
Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.
The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.
However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.
Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.
He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.
“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”
This article contains information from PA Media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.
Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.
The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”
‘Highly dangerous’ procedure
Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.
A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.
Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.
Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.
Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.
Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”
A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
Controversy over his ‘true age’
Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.
During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.
But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.
However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.
In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.
The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.
Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.
The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.
However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.
Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.
He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.
“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”
This article contains information from PA Media.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.
Doc releases song after racist massacre in Buffalo
Physician-musician Cleveland Francis, MD, responded to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, which left 10 dead, in the only way he knew how. He wrote and recorded a song to honor the victims as “a plea to the other side to recognize us as people,” the Black cardiologist told this news organization.
He couldn’t sleep after the shooting, and “this song was just in my head.” In the 1990s, Dr. Francis took a 3-year sabbatical from medicine to perform and tour as a country singer. He leveraged his Nashville connections to get “Buffalo” produced and recorded.
Acclaimed artist James Threalkill created the accompanying art, titled “The Heavenly Escort of the Buffalo 10,” after listening to a scratch demo.
Dr. Francis doesn’t want people to overlook the massacre as just another gun violence incident because this was “overt hate-crime racism,” he said.
According to the affidavit submitted by FBI agent Christopher J. Dlugokinski, the suspect’s “motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing White people and eliminating the White race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks.”
Dr. Francis views the Buffalo shooting as distinct from cases like the murder of George Floyd that involved crime or police. It immediately made him think of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. “Having a black skin is now a death warrant,” he said.
The song is also an appeal for White people to fight racism. Dr. Francis is concerned about young men caught up in white supremacy and suggests that we be more alert to children or grandchildren who disconnect from their families, spend time on the dark web, and access guns. The lyrics deliberately don’t mention guns because Dr. Francis wanted to stay out of that debate. “I just sang: ‘What else do I have to do to prove to you that I’m human too?’ ”
Despite his country credentials, Dr. Francis wrote “Buffalo” as a Gospel song because that genre “connects with Black people more and because that civil rights movement was through the church with Dr. Martin Luther King,” he explained. Although he sings all styles of music, the song is performed by Nashville-based singer Michael Lusk so that it’s not a “Cleve Francis thing,” he said, referring to his stage name.
Songwriter Norman Kerner collaborated on the song. The music was produced and recorded by David Thein and mixed by Bob Bullock of Nashville, who Dr. Francis had worked with when he was an artist on Capitol Records.
They sent the video and artwork to the Mayor of Buffalo, Byron Brown, but have yet to hear back. Dr. Francis hopes it could be part of their healing, noting that some people used the song in their Juneteenth celebrations.
The Louisiana native grew up during segregation and was one of two Black students in the Medical College of Virginia class of 1973. After completing his cardiology fellowship, no one would hire him, so Dr. Francis set up his own practice in Northern Virginia. He now works at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Alexandria, Va. He remains optimistic about race relations in America and would love a Black pop or Gospel star to record “Buffalo” and bring it to a wider audience.
Dr. Francis is a regular blogger for Medscape. His contribution to country music is recognized in the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC. You can find more of his music on YouTube.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician-musician Cleveland Francis, MD, responded to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, which left 10 dead, in the only way he knew how. He wrote and recorded a song to honor the victims as “a plea to the other side to recognize us as people,” the Black cardiologist told this news organization.
He couldn’t sleep after the shooting, and “this song was just in my head.” In the 1990s, Dr. Francis took a 3-year sabbatical from medicine to perform and tour as a country singer. He leveraged his Nashville connections to get “Buffalo” produced and recorded.
Acclaimed artist James Threalkill created the accompanying art, titled “The Heavenly Escort of the Buffalo 10,” after listening to a scratch demo.
Dr. Francis doesn’t want people to overlook the massacre as just another gun violence incident because this was “overt hate-crime racism,” he said.
According to the affidavit submitted by FBI agent Christopher J. Dlugokinski, the suspect’s “motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing White people and eliminating the White race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks.”
Dr. Francis views the Buffalo shooting as distinct from cases like the murder of George Floyd that involved crime or police. It immediately made him think of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. “Having a black skin is now a death warrant,” he said.
The song is also an appeal for White people to fight racism. Dr. Francis is concerned about young men caught up in white supremacy and suggests that we be more alert to children or grandchildren who disconnect from their families, spend time on the dark web, and access guns. The lyrics deliberately don’t mention guns because Dr. Francis wanted to stay out of that debate. “I just sang: ‘What else do I have to do to prove to you that I’m human too?’ ”
Despite his country credentials, Dr. Francis wrote “Buffalo” as a Gospel song because that genre “connects with Black people more and because that civil rights movement was through the church with Dr. Martin Luther King,” he explained. Although he sings all styles of music, the song is performed by Nashville-based singer Michael Lusk so that it’s not a “Cleve Francis thing,” he said, referring to his stage name.
Songwriter Norman Kerner collaborated on the song. The music was produced and recorded by David Thein and mixed by Bob Bullock of Nashville, who Dr. Francis had worked with when he was an artist on Capitol Records.
They sent the video and artwork to the Mayor of Buffalo, Byron Brown, but have yet to hear back. Dr. Francis hopes it could be part of their healing, noting that some people used the song in their Juneteenth celebrations.
The Louisiana native grew up during segregation and was one of two Black students in the Medical College of Virginia class of 1973. After completing his cardiology fellowship, no one would hire him, so Dr. Francis set up his own practice in Northern Virginia. He now works at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Alexandria, Va. He remains optimistic about race relations in America and would love a Black pop or Gospel star to record “Buffalo” and bring it to a wider audience.
Dr. Francis is a regular blogger for Medscape. His contribution to country music is recognized in the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC. You can find more of his music on YouTube.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician-musician Cleveland Francis, MD, responded to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, which left 10 dead, in the only way he knew how. He wrote and recorded a song to honor the victims as “a plea to the other side to recognize us as people,” the Black cardiologist told this news organization.
He couldn’t sleep after the shooting, and “this song was just in my head.” In the 1990s, Dr. Francis took a 3-year sabbatical from medicine to perform and tour as a country singer. He leveraged his Nashville connections to get “Buffalo” produced and recorded.
Acclaimed artist James Threalkill created the accompanying art, titled “The Heavenly Escort of the Buffalo 10,” after listening to a scratch demo.
Dr. Francis doesn’t want people to overlook the massacre as just another gun violence incident because this was “overt hate-crime racism,” he said.
According to the affidavit submitted by FBI agent Christopher J. Dlugokinski, the suspect’s “motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing White people and eliminating the White race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks.”
Dr. Francis views the Buffalo shooting as distinct from cases like the murder of George Floyd that involved crime or police. It immediately made him think of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. “Having a black skin is now a death warrant,” he said.
The song is also an appeal for White people to fight racism. Dr. Francis is concerned about young men caught up in white supremacy and suggests that we be more alert to children or grandchildren who disconnect from their families, spend time on the dark web, and access guns. The lyrics deliberately don’t mention guns because Dr. Francis wanted to stay out of that debate. “I just sang: ‘What else do I have to do to prove to you that I’m human too?’ ”
Despite his country credentials, Dr. Francis wrote “Buffalo” as a Gospel song because that genre “connects with Black people more and because that civil rights movement was through the church with Dr. Martin Luther King,” he explained. Although he sings all styles of music, the song is performed by Nashville-based singer Michael Lusk so that it’s not a “Cleve Francis thing,” he said, referring to his stage name.
Songwriter Norman Kerner collaborated on the song. The music was produced and recorded by David Thein and mixed by Bob Bullock of Nashville, who Dr. Francis had worked with when he was an artist on Capitol Records.
They sent the video and artwork to the Mayor of Buffalo, Byron Brown, but have yet to hear back. Dr. Francis hopes it could be part of their healing, noting that some people used the song in their Juneteenth celebrations.
The Louisiana native grew up during segregation and was one of two Black students in the Medical College of Virginia class of 1973. After completing his cardiology fellowship, no one would hire him, so Dr. Francis set up his own practice in Northern Virginia. He now works at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Alexandria, Va. He remains optimistic about race relations in America and would love a Black pop or Gospel star to record “Buffalo” and bring it to a wider audience.
Dr. Francis is a regular blogger for Medscape. His contribution to country music is recognized in the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC. You can find more of his music on YouTube.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nevada sees increase in out-of-state abortion patients
Nevada is already seeing more out-of-state patients seeking an abortion, which state officials expected after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Las Vegas has seen a 200% increase in patients traveling from Texas, compared with the same time last year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Patients are also expected from Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah after the ruling. Abortion providers are preparing for a ripple effect as abortion bans begin across the country.
“We haven’t seen the peak yet,” Kristina Tocce, MD, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and an obstetrician-gynecologist in Colorado, told the newspaper.
“I don’t think we’re going to see any decrease anytime in the near future,” she said.
Nevada made the right to abortion part of state law more than 3 decades ago, in 1990, which protects abortions up to 24 weeks. Colorado passed a similar law this year.
In June, before Roe was overturned, Dr. Tocce said the organization expected abortions to rise by 80% – or about 10,000 patients – in the Rocky Mountain region, which includes southern Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Even before the ruling took place, Planned Parenthood saw higher numbers of patients as abortion bans took effect in Texas and Oklahoma, she said. After the 6-week ban took place in Texas, about 45% of traveling patients went to Oklahoma. Now that a ban is in place in Oklahoma, patients are going elsewhere.
Las Vegas providers have asked patients why they decided to travel to southern Nevada for services rather than Colorado or New Mexico, which are closer to Texas, Dr. Tocce said. Patients cited several reasons, including direct flight paths, cheaper plane tickets, and the presence of family or friends who could support them.
“We’re going to see such a demand on abortion in any state that has secure access,” Dr. Tocce said. “Patients may be forced to travel further away.”
After Roe was overturned, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak held an emergency news conference to reaffirm the state’s commitment to protecting abortion rights. He also said he wasn’t sure about Nevada’s capacity to support out-of-state patients but providers were researching and preparing.
Two Planned Parenthood centers in southern Nevada are adding staff and increasing their hours, Dr. Tocce told the newspaper last month, though there weren’t immediate plans to increase the number of locations or add centers near state borders.
Last week, Governor Sisolak signed an executive order that stops Nevada agencies from helping other states investigate patients seeking an abortion in Nevada. The order also protects patients from extradition and health care providers from losing their license for providing abortion services.
As abortion bans continue to roll out across the U.S., patients will likely consider traveling to states that have certain protections and accessible appointments, Dr. Tocce said.
“We’re in such an ambiguous time right now, we just don’t know what each state is going to attempt to enact,” she said. “My head just swims with all of the possibilities. If that’s challenging for me, I can’t even imagine what it’s going to be like for a patient to navigate.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Nevada is already seeing more out-of-state patients seeking an abortion, which state officials expected after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Las Vegas has seen a 200% increase in patients traveling from Texas, compared with the same time last year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Patients are also expected from Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah after the ruling. Abortion providers are preparing for a ripple effect as abortion bans begin across the country.
“We haven’t seen the peak yet,” Kristina Tocce, MD, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and an obstetrician-gynecologist in Colorado, told the newspaper.
“I don’t think we’re going to see any decrease anytime in the near future,” she said.
Nevada made the right to abortion part of state law more than 3 decades ago, in 1990, which protects abortions up to 24 weeks. Colorado passed a similar law this year.
In June, before Roe was overturned, Dr. Tocce said the organization expected abortions to rise by 80% – or about 10,000 patients – in the Rocky Mountain region, which includes southern Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Even before the ruling took place, Planned Parenthood saw higher numbers of patients as abortion bans took effect in Texas and Oklahoma, she said. After the 6-week ban took place in Texas, about 45% of traveling patients went to Oklahoma. Now that a ban is in place in Oklahoma, patients are going elsewhere.
Las Vegas providers have asked patients why they decided to travel to southern Nevada for services rather than Colorado or New Mexico, which are closer to Texas, Dr. Tocce said. Patients cited several reasons, including direct flight paths, cheaper plane tickets, and the presence of family or friends who could support them.
“We’re going to see such a demand on abortion in any state that has secure access,” Dr. Tocce said. “Patients may be forced to travel further away.”
After Roe was overturned, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak held an emergency news conference to reaffirm the state’s commitment to protecting abortion rights. He also said he wasn’t sure about Nevada’s capacity to support out-of-state patients but providers were researching and preparing.
Two Planned Parenthood centers in southern Nevada are adding staff and increasing their hours, Dr. Tocce told the newspaper last month, though there weren’t immediate plans to increase the number of locations or add centers near state borders.
Last week, Governor Sisolak signed an executive order that stops Nevada agencies from helping other states investigate patients seeking an abortion in Nevada. The order also protects patients from extradition and health care providers from losing their license for providing abortion services.
As abortion bans continue to roll out across the U.S., patients will likely consider traveling to states that have certain protections and accessible appointments, Dr. Tocce said.
“We’re in such an ambiguous time right now, we just don’t know what each state is going to attempt to enact,” she said. “My head just swims with all of the possibilities. If that’s challenging for me, I can’t even imagine what it’s going to be like for a patient to navigate.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Nevada is already seeing more out-of-state patients seeking an abortion, which state officials expected after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Las Vegas has seen a 200% increase in patients traveling from Texas, compared with the same time last year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Patients are also expected from Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah after the ruling. Abortion providers are preparing for a ripple effect as abortion bans begin across the country.
“We haven’t seen the peak yet,” Kristina Tocce, MD, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and an obstetrician-gynecologist in Colorado, told the newspaper.
“I don’t think we’re going to see any decrease anytime in the near future,” she said.
Nevada made the right to abortion part of state law more than 3 decades ago, in 1990, which protects abortions up to 24 weeks. Colorado passed a similar law this year.
In June, before Roe was overturned, Dr. Tocce said the organization expected abortions to rise by 80% – or about 10,000 patients – in the Rocky Mountain region, which includes southern Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Even before the ruling took place, Planned Parenthood saw higher numbers of patients as abortion bans took effect in Texas and Oklahoma, she said. After the 6-week ban took place in Texas, about 45% of traveling patients went to Oklahoma. Now that a ban is in place in Oklahoma, patients are going elsewhere.
Las Vegas providers have asked patients why they decided to travel to southern Nevada for services rather than Colorado or New Mexico, which are closer to Texas, Dr. Tocce said. Patients cited several reasons, including direct flight paths, cheaper plane tickets, and the presence of family or friends who could support them.
“We’re going to see such a demand on abortion in any state that has secure access,” Dr. Tocce said. “Patients may be forced to travel further away.”
After Roe was overturned, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak held an emergency news conference to reaffirm the state’s commitment to protecting abortion rights. He also said he wasn’t sure about Nevada’s capacity to support out-of-state patients but providers were researching and preparing.
Two Planned Parenthood centers in southern Nevada are adding staff and increasing their hours, Dr. Tocce told the newspaper last month, though there weren’t immediate plans to increase the number of locations or add centers near state borders.
Last week, Governor Sisolak signed an executive order that stops Nevada agencies from helping other states investigate patients seeking an abortion in Nevada. The order also protects patients from extradition and health care providers from losing their license for providing abortion services.
As abortion bans continue to roll out across the U.S., patients will likely consider traveling to states that have certain protections and accessible appointments, Dr. Tocce said.
“We’re in such an ambiguous time right now, we just don’t know what each state is going to attempt to enact,” she said. “My head just swims with all of the possibilities. If that’s challenging for me, I can’t even imagine what it’s going to be like for a patient to navigate.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Access to certified stroke centers divided by race, income
Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.
Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.
The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”
In an audio interview on the JAMA Neurology website, senior author Renee Y. Hsia, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said: “Our findings show there are clear disparities in which communities are getting access to stroke certified hospitals.”
She called for more help for hospitals in underserved areas to obtain stroke certification.
Dr. Hsia explained that hospitals can seek certification at their own expense and that although stroke care is expensive, it is also lucrative in terms of reimbursement. So it tends to be the private for-profit hospitals that seek these certifications. “If you are a county hospital on a really tight budget, you’re not going to have the extra cash on hand to be applying for stroke certification,” she commented.
This can result in an increase in hospitals with stroke certification – but not in the areas that need it the most.
Dr. Hsia points out that this has happened in cardiac care. One study showed a 44% increase in hospitals providing percutaneous coronary intervention over a 10-year period, but the percentage of the population that had better access increased by less than 1%.
“In general, in the United States we have a mentality that ‘more is better,’ and because there is no government regulation in health care, any time a hospital applies for these specialized services we just generally think that’s a good thing. But this might not always be the case,” Dr. Hsia noted. “We have a very market-based approach, and this doesn’t lead to equity. It leads to profit maximization, and that is not synonymous with what’s good for patients or populations.”
She suggested that in future the process of certification should include some consideration of how it will affect population-based equity.
“Rather than rubber stamping an application just because hospitals have certain resources, we need to ask what the benefit is of providing this service,” Dr. Hsia said. “Does this community really need it? If not, maybe we should invest these resources into helping a hospital in a community that needs it more.”
Dr. Hsia explained that she and her colleagues conducted their study to investigate whether there were structural issues that might be contributing to disparities in stroke care.
“We like to think emergency stroke care is equitable. Anyone can call 911 or go the emergency room. But, actually, there is a big disparity on who receives what type of care,” she said. “We know Black patients are less likely to receive thrombolytics and mechanical thrombectomy compared to White patents. And wealthy patients are more likely to receive thrombectomy compared to patients from the poorest zip codes.”
She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”
The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.
A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).
Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).
However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).
“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.
In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.
Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).
“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.
This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.
Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.
The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”
In an audio interview on the JAMA Neurology website, senior author Renee Y. Hsia, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said: “Our findings show there are clear disparities in which communities are getting access to stroke certified hospitals.”
She called for more help for hospitals in underserved areas to obtain stroke certification.
Dr. Hsia explained that hospitals can seek certification at their own expense and that although stroke care is expensive, it is also lucrative in terms of reimbursement. So it tends to be the private for-profit hospitals that seek these certifications. “If you are a county hospital on a really tight budget, you’re not going to have the extra cash on hand to be applying for stroke certification,” she commented.
This can result in an increase in hospitals with stroke certification – but not in the areas that need it the most.
Dr. Hsia points out that this has happened in cardiac care. One study showed a 44% increase in hospitals providing percutaneous coronary intervention over a 10-year period, but the percentage of the population that had better access increased by less than 1%.
“In general, in the United States we have a mentality that ‘more is better,’ and because there is no government regulation in health care, any time a hospital applies for these specialized services we just generally think that’s a good thing. But this might not always be the case,” Dr. Hsia noted. “We have a very market-based approach, and this doesn’t lead to equity. It leads to profit maximization, and that is not synonymous with what’s good for patients or populations.”
She suggested that in future the process of certification should include some consideration of how it will affect population-based equity.
“Rather than rubber stamping an application just because hospitals have certain resources, we need to ask what the benefit is of providing this service,” Dr. Hsia said. “Does this community really need it? If not, maybe we should invest these resources into helping a hospital in a community that needs it more.”
Dr. Hsia explained that she and her colleagues conducted their study to investigate whether there were structural issues that might be contributing to disparities in stroke care.
“We like to think emergency stroke care is equitable. Anyone can call 911 or go the emergency room. But, actually, there is a big disparity on who receives what type of care,” she said. “We know Black patients are less likely to receive thrombolytics and mechanical thrombectomy compared to White patents. And wealthy patients are more likely to receive thrombectomy compared to patients from the poorest zip codes.”
She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”
The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.
A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).
Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).
However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).
“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.
In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.
Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).
“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.
This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.
Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.
The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”
In an audio interview on the JAMA Neurology website, senior author Renee Y. Hsia, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said: “Our findings show there are clear disparities in which communities are getting access to stroke certified hospitals.”
She called for more help for hospitals in underserved areas to obtain stroke certification.
Dr. Hsia explained that hospitals can seek certification at their own expense and that although stroke care is expensive, it is also lucrative in terms of reimbursement. So it tends to be the private for-profit hospitals that seek these certifications. “If you are a county hospital on a really tight budget, you’re not going to have the extra cash on hand to be applying for stroke certification,” she commented.
This can result in an increase in hospitals with stroke certification – but not in the areas that need it the most.
Dr. Hsia points out that this has happened in cardiac care. One study showed a 44% increase in hospitals providing percutaneous coronary intervention over a 10-year period, but the percentage of the population that had better access increased by less than 1%.
“In general, in the United States we have a mentality that ‘more is better,’ and because there is no government regulation in health care, any time a hospital applies for these specialized services we just generally think that’s a good thing. But this might not always be the case,” Dr. Hsia noted. “We have a very market-based approach, and this doesn’t lead to equity. It leads to profit maximization, and that is not synonymous with what’s good for patients or populations.”
She suggested that in future the process of certification should include some consideration of how it will affect population-based equity.
“Rather than rubber stamping an application just because hospitals have certain resources, we need to ask what the benefit is of providing this service,” Dr. Hsia said. “Does this community really need it? If not, maybe we should invest these resources into helping a hospital in a community that needs it more.”
Dr. Hsia explained that she and her colleagues conducted their study to investigate whether there were structural issues that might be contributing to disparities in stroke care.
“We like to think emergency stroke care is equitable. Anyone can call 911 or go the emergency room. But, actually, there is a big disparity on who receives what type of care,” she said. “We know Black patients are less likely to receive thrombolytics and mechanical thrombectomy compared to White patents. And wealthy patients are more likely to receive thrombectomy compared to patients from the poorest zip codes.”
She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”
The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.
A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).
Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).
However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).
“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.
In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.
Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).
“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.
This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.